You have a complaint against an EU institution or body?

Cinneadh i gcás 185/2005/ELB - Idirdhealú ar bhonn aoise i gcás saorateangairí


Achoimre ar chinneadh faoi ghearán 185/2005/ELB i gcoinne Choimisiún na hEorpa

Is saorateangairí iad na hAteangairí Comhdhálacha Cúntacha ('ACC') a fhruilítear i gcomhair comhdhálacha agus cruinnithe ar leith. Bíonn tréimhse gach sannachán gearr, níos giorra ná cúpla lá de ghnáth. In 2000, d'éirigh Coimisiún na hEorpa agus Parlaimint na hEorpa as ACCanna os cionn 65 bliana d'aois a fhruiliú. In 2004, bhí an gearánach 65 bliana d'aois, agus bhí sé tar éis níos mó ná 35 bliana a chaitheamh ag obair leis na hinstitiúidí seo mar ACC. Ó shin i leith, ní bhfuair sé a thuilleadh tairiscintí poist ó na hinstitiúidí seo. Chuir an gearánach dhá ghearán i gcoinne an Choimisiúin agus na Parlaiminte chuig an Ombudsman, ag áiteamh go raibh siad ag déanamh idirdhealú ina choinne ar bhonn a aoise. Sa dara cás i gcoinne na Parlaiminte (Cás 186/2005/ELB), a dúnadh ar an 19 Samhain 2008, ghlac an Pharlaimint dréachtmholadh an Ombudsman agus, mar sin, níor chinn an tOmbudsman go raibh drochriarachán i gceist.

Sa chás i gcoinne an Choimisiúin, chinn an tOmbudsman nár chosain an Coimisiún go leordhóthanach an chúis go gcaitear le hACCanna os cionn 65 ar bhonn difriúil. Dhiúltaigh an Coimisiún, áfach, don moladh um réiteach cairdiúil agus don dréachtmholadh ón Ombudsman araon inar iarr sé an fhadhb a réiteach.

Toisc go n-ardaíonn an cás seo ceist phrionsabail, tá an tOmbudsman tar éis Saintuairisc a chur faoi bhráid na Parlaiminte.

Sa Saintuairisc seo, tugann an tOmbudsman faoi deara gur mhol sé don Chomisiún cheana féin a bheartas reatha um an toirmeasc ar an bhfruiliú de ACCanna os cionn 65 bliana d'aois a athrú. Chomh maith leis sin, mhol sé don Choimisiún cúiteamh a thabhairt don ghearánach.

Toirmisctear idirdhealú ar bhonn aoise faoi Airteagal 21 den Chairt um Chearta Bunúsacha. Glacann an tOmbudsman gur féidir, i gcúinsí eisceachtúla, déileáil dhifriúil ar bhonn aoise a chosaint, chun 'spriocanna dlisteanacha' a bhaint amach. Sa chás seo, níor eisiaigh an tOmbudsman an fhéidearthacht gur 'sprioc dlisteanach' é sprioc sainithe an Choimisiúin - an fruiliú agus oiliúint de ateangairí nua. Bhí sé in amhras, áfach, go raibh toirmeasc iomlán ar an bhfruiliú de ACCanna os cionn 65 bliana d'aois cuí nó riachtanach chun an sprioc sin a bhaint amach.

Ina Shaintuairisc, iarrann an tOmbudsman ar an bParlaimint tacaíocht a thabhairt dá mholadh don Choimisiún.


1. The complainant worked for the European institutions for more than 35 years as a freelance auxiliary conference interpreter ('ACI'), translating into French from Dutch, English, German, Italian and Spanish. Freelance interpreters are hired for specific conferences and meetings. The period of each specific assignment is short, lasting normally no more than a few days.

2. On 13 July 1999, the Bureau of the European Parliament established rules for the hiring of ACIs ('the Rules of 1999'). On 28 July 1999, the Commission and Parliament signed a convention on working conditions and financial terms for ACIs ('the Convention of 1999'). Subsequently, Council Regulation No 628/2000(1) provided for the recruitment of ACIs as "auxiliary agents".

3. In this context, the European Commission and the European Parliament decided to stop hiring ACIs older than 65 years of age. They based their respective decisions on Article 74 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the Communities ('the CEOS')(2). Subsequently, certain ACIs(3) initiated legal proceedings before the Court of First Instance against the Commission and Parliament (Joined Cases T-153/01 and T-323/01(4), Case T-275/01(5) and Case T-276/01(6)), requesting the annulment of the institutions' letters stating that they could no longer recruit ACIs who are older than 65 years of age.

4. The Court of First Instance found that, as a result of these letters, the institutions had refused to recruit the applicants because of their age, and that these decisions were not lawful. The Court also held that the institutions had wrongly considered that Article 74(1) of the CEOS applied to the applicants.

5. On 27 August 2004, the Commission launched an appeal before the Court of Justice (Case C-373/2004 P(7)) against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance in Joined Cases T-153/01 and T-323/01.


6. The complainant stated that, even subsequent to the ruling of the Court of First Instance, the Commission refused to hire him as an ACI. In this context, he alleged that the Commission failed to comply with Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights(8) and with Article 5(3) of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour(9), both of which prohibit, inter alia, discrimination on the basis of age.

7. The complainant claimed that the Commission should put an end to the discrimination to which he has been subjected since he reached the age of 65. He also claimed compensation of EUR 14 619 from the Commission (EUR 10 932 corresponding to loss of earnings and EUR 3 687 corresponding to contributions to the "Caisse de prévoyance des interprètes de conférence") and assessed the moral damage he had suffered to be EUR 20 000.

8. In addition, he alleged that the Commission failed to comply with Article 19 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour, which concerns the need for institutions to provide information concerning the possibilities of appeal.


9. The complainant submitted his complaint on 16 January 2005. On 8 June 2005, the Commission sent its opinion, which was forwarded to the complainant for his observations. On 13 July 2005, the complainant sent his observations.

10. On 13 December 2005, the Ombudsman requested further information from the Commission. On 20 March 2006, the Commission replied to his request. On 2 April 2006 and 19 May 2006, the complainant sent his observations.

11. On 1 December 2006, the Ombudsman wrote to the President of the Commission seeking a friendly solution to the complaint. The Commission sent its reply on 16 March 2007 and the complainant sent his observations on 25 May 2007.

12. On 31 March 2008, the Ombudsman addressed a draft recommendation to the Commission. On 26 June 2008, the Commission sent its detailed opinion concerning this draft recommendation. The complainant made his observations on the Commission's opinion on 31 July 2008.


A. Allegation of a general policy of discrimination against ACIs over 65 years of age and related claim

13. The Ombudsman considers that the present case raises an important issue of principle. He takes the view that the Commission infringes the principle of non-discrimination on the basis of age by imposing an absolute ban on hiring freelance auxiliary conference interpreters over 65 years of age. This constitutes an instance of maladministration, the importance of which justifies the submission of a special report to Parliament. The Ombudsman's analysis as regards this allegation is presented in the Special Report submitted to Parliament, which is attached to the present decision. The Statute of the Ombudsman provides that the submission of a report to the European Parliament constitutes the final step in an inquiry by the Ombudsman.

B. Allegation of failure to comply with Article 19 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

14. The complainant stated that the Ombudsman should examine whether, when deciding not to recruit him, the Commission complied with Article 19 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour, which states the following:

"A decision of the Institution which may adversely affect the rights or interests of a private person shall contain an indication of the appeal possibilities available for challenging the decision. It shall in particular indicate the nature of the remedies, the bodies before which they can be exercised, as well as the time-limits for exercising them.

Decisions shall in particular refer to the possibility of judicial proceedings and complaints to the Ombudsman under the conditions specified in, respectively, Articles 230 and 195 of the Treaty establishing the European Community."

15. In its opinion dated 10 March 2006, the Commission pointed out that the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour was not legally binding on it. However, Article 3 of its own Code was binding and provided as follows: "[w]here Community law so provides, measures notified to an interested party should clearly state that an appeal is possible and describe how to submit it". In the present case, the Commission took no decision as regards the complainant. Consequently, the Commission considered that the above-mentioned article was not applicable.

16. In his observations, the complainant admitted that no decision was taken and recalled that this was one of the problems encountered by the applicants in the course of the legal proceedings.

The Ombudsman's assessment

17. Given that the complainant admitted that no decision was taken, the Ombudsman takes the view that there is no maladministration as regards this aspect of the complaint.

C. Conclusions

The Ombudsman refers to his Special Report as regards the allegation of a general policy of discrimination. He finds no maladministration as regards the alleged failure to comply with Article 19 of the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour.

The complainant and the European Commission will be informed of this decision.



Done in Strasbourg on 4 December 2008

(1) Council Regulation No 628/2000 of 20 March 2000, amending Regulation No 259/68 laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the Communities, OJ 2000 L 76, p. 1. Article 1 of this Regulation reads as follows:

"(...) (2) All conference interpreters should consequently be engaged as auxiliary staff covered by Title III of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities (...)

The following paragraph shall be added to Article 78 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities:

The same conditions of recruitment and remuneration applied to conference interpreters engaged by the European Parliament shall apply to auxiliary staff engaged by the Commission as conference interpreters on behalf of the Community institutions and bodies."

(2) Article 74 of the CEOS (in the version applicable at that time) provided as follows: "Apart from cessation on death, the employment of auxiliary staff shall cease: 1. where the contract is for a fixed period: (...) (b) at the end of the month in which the servant reaches the age of 65 years (...)"

(3) The complainant was not a party to these court proceedings.

(4) Joined Cases T-153/01 and T-323/01 Alvarez Moreno v Commission [2004] ECR-SC I-A-161 and II-719.

(5) Case T-275/01 Alvarez Moreno v Parliament [2004] ECR-SC I-A-171 and II-765.

(6) Case T-276/01 Garroni v Parliament [2004] ECR-SC I-A-177 and II-795.

(7) Case C-373/04 P Commission v Alvarez Moreno [2006] ECR I-1.

(8) Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights states that: "Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited."

(9) Article 5(3) of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour states the following: "The official shall in particular avoid any unjustified discrimination between members of the public based on nationality, sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age, or sexual orientation."